* some examples of emacs manual problem @ 2010-09-13 3:36 Xah Lee 2010-09-13 10:30 ` Stefan Monnier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Xah Lee @ 2010-09-13 3:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs in the past there's some discussion about emacs manual problems. recently i found in a blog that contains some concrete example of emacs's manual problem. here's relevant excerpt. -------------------------------------------------- I ran into a Chinese blog article on emacs today. 〈GNU Emacs on Windows〉 (2010-06-25), by 葉難 (Yeh Nan). At: yehnan.blogspot.com. It's written in a “Question & Answer” format in a humorous way. Very well done. There's a interesting section about emacs documentation. Here's my translation. Q: These docs [emacs's manual] seem odd? A: I think Emacs's official docs are all odd and wordy, because: (1) The writer presumes all users are beginners, with no experience in using a editor, even no experience in using a computer. Look at this sentence: Files are named units of text which are stored by the operating system for you to retrieve later by name. O please, do i need to be told what's a file? (2) The author seems to have stopped in the 1980s, lots of tech terms have gone obsolete. Look at this: We use the term frame to mean the entire terminal screen or graphical window used by Emacs. The main area of the frame, below the tool bar (if one exists) and above the echo area, is called the window. Wow, your “frame” is my “window”, then what the heck is your “window”? (3) Author is nostalgic of the past era; some advanced features of the past are no longer advanced. Example: You are reading about GNU Emacs, the GNU incarnation of the advanced, self-documenting, customizable, extensible editor Emacs. Huh? “self-documenting”? What editor doesn't have documentation? “extensible, customizable”? Nowadays many editors all can be extended or customized to various degrees. (4) Some features are too powerful, so explanation would be cumbersome: You can yank text from the kill ring into any position in a buffer, including a position in a different buffer; the kill ring is shared by all buffers. The “yank & kill” here is like “cut & paste”, then what's “kill ring”? Perhaps that means when you cut many times, it won't leave just the last cut text, previous cuts are all still in “kill ring”. (5) Because Emacs uses keyboard as its primary input, although these days we have mouse, but the core design philosophy still requires all functionalities be operable with a keyboard. For example, “selecting a text” can be easily done with a mouse, but the manual must use lots words to explain how this is done with keyboard. Example: Setting the mark at a position in the text also activates it. When the mark is active, Emacs indicates the extent of the region by highlighting the text within it, using the region face. After certain non-motion commands, including any command that changes the text in the buffer, Emacs automatically deactivates the mark; this turns off the highlighting. What the hell? A Click and a drag, and it's done. Here's the original. 問:這些文件怎麼看起來怪怪的? 答:我覺得Emacs官方寫的文件都很奇怪很囉嗦,因為: 第一,寫的人把用的人都當做初學者,沒有使用編輯器的經驗、甚至沒有使用電腦的經驗。看看這段話: "Files are named units of text which are stored by the operating system for you to retrieve later by name.",拜託,我還需要你教我“檔案”是什麼東西嗎? 第二,寫文件的人似乎停留在1980年代,裡面很多術語都很老舊了,看看這個: " We use the term frame to mean the entire terminal screen or graphical window used by Emacs."、"The main area of the frame, below the tool bar (if one exists) and above the echo area, is called the window.",哇哩咧,你的frame是我的 window,你的window又是什麼鬼? 第三,寫文件的人還在緬懷以前的時光,有些在以前算特殊的功能,已經不再特殊了,例如: "You are reading about GNU Emacs, the GNU incarnation of the advanced, self- documenting, customizable, extensible editor Emacs.",啥?self-documenting?哪個編輯器沒有說明文件 啊?extensible, customizable?現在很多編輯器多多少少都可以客製化了。 第四,有些功能太過強大,所以解釋起來很麻煩: "You can yank text from the kill ring into any position in a buffer, including a position in a different buffer; the kill ring is shared by all buffers.",yank&kill在這裡等於cut&paste,而kill ring呢?大概是指你cut好幾次後,不會只剩下最後一次cut的東西,之前的都還在kill ring裡面。 第五,因為Emacs以鍵盤為主,雖然現在有滑鼠可以用了,可是其中心思想還是要求所有的功能動作都要能用鍵盤達到,以至於像“把一段文字圈 選”這種以滑鼠可以輕易達到的功能,手冊要用好多篇幅講解鍵盤的指令。譬如說: "Setting the mark at a position in the text also activates it. When the mark is active, Emacs indicates the extent of the region by highlighting the text within it, using the region face. After certain non-motion commands, including any command that changes the text in the buffer, Emacs automatically deactivates the mark; this turns off the highlighting. ",什麼鬼啊,滑鼠點一點拉一拉就 好了啦。 For a overall discussion of Emacs Manual problems, see: Problems of Emacs's Manual. -------------------------------------------------- html version with formats and links at: http://xahlee.blogspot.com/2010/08/problems-of-emacss-manual-examples.html Xah ∑ xahlee.org ☄ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: some examples of emacs manual problem 2010-09-13 3:36 some examples of emacs manual problem Xah Lee @ 2010-09-13 10:30 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-09-13 12:27 ` Xah Lee 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2010-09-13 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > (1) The writer presumes all users are beginners, with no experience in > using a editor, even no experience in using a computer. Look at this > sentence: > Files are named units of text which are stored by the operating > system for you to retrieve later by name. > O please, do i need to be told what's a file? We could/should probably remove that part, indeed. > (2) The author seems to have stopped in the 1980s, lots of tech terms > have gone obsolete. Look at this: > We use the term frame to mean the entire terminal screen or > graphical window used by Emacs. > The main area of the frame, below the tool bar (if one exists) and > above the echo area, is called the window. > Wow, your “frame” is my “window”, then what the heck is your “window”? In what way is that a problem in the manual? These are the terms used throughout Emacs's source code and for reasons of Emacs's design source code names are very visible to the user, so if the manual doesn't explain what we mean by "frame" and "window", that will be a lot more confusing. > (3) Author is nostalgic of the past era; some advanced features of the > past are no longer advanced. Example: > You are reading about GNU Emacs, the GNU incarnation of the > advanced, self-documenting, customizable, extensible editor Emacs. > Huh? “self-documenting”? What editor doesn't have documentation? > “extensible, customizable”? Nowadays many editors all can be extended > or customized to various degrees. Very few programs have so much documentation available online. Even many internal functions have online documentation. And very few programs are nearly as deeply customizable. Yes, it's a question of degree, but I think we're still ahead in those areas. As for "advanced", well it's just a marketing term. > (4) Some features are too powerful, so explanation would be > cumbersome: > You can yank text from the kill ring into any position in a > buffer, including a position in a different buffer; the kill ring is > shared by all buffers. > The “yank & kill” here is like “cut & paste”, then what's “kill ring”? > Perhaps that means when you cut many times, it won't leave just the > last cut text, previous cuts are all still in “kill ring”. If you look up kill-ring in the index (e.g. by typing "i kill-ring RET" in Info), you'll find the section "13.3 Yanking Earlier Kills" which I hope explains it well enough. > (5) Because Emacs uses keyboard as its primary input, although these > days we have mouse, but the core design philosophy still requires all > functionalities be operable with a keyboard. For example, “selecting a > text” can be easily done with a mouse, but the manual must use lots > words to explain how this is done with keyboard. Example: If you consider it useless to use the keyboard when you can use the mouse, that's your problem. For people who find it handy to use the keyboard, this section is useful. Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: some examples of emacs manual problem 2010-09-13 10:30 ` Stefan Monnier @ 2010-09-13 12:27 ` Xah Lee 2010-09-13 18:08 ` B. T. Raven 2010-09-13 21:12 ` Stefan Monnier 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Xah Lee @ 2010-09-13 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Hi stefan, i think the general situation is not about logical flaw or deficiency of emacs manual. Rather, it's generation gap. (side note: one example i've been thinking is to compare the classic english literature Gulliver's Travels. It is well acknowledged by all scholars to be a impecable piece of english work in grammar, style, story quality, satire execution, but if you read it today, you find it's exceedingly difficult to understand... requiring a background understanding all the politics, history, of europe at the time, as well as the writing style and vocabulary that's few hundred years old) back to emacs manual... to my mind, emacs manual problems can be solved rather without much difficulty, yet still remain accurate, true to emacs spirit, and i think agreeable to FSF's philosophy as well as any marketing spirit thrown in. Xah ∑ xahlee.org ☄ On Sep 13, 3:30 am, Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > (1) The writer presumes all users are beginners, with no experience in > > using a editor, even no experience in using a computer. Look at this > > sentence: > > Files are named units of text which are stored by the operating > > system for you to retrieve later by name. > > O please, do i need to be told what's a file? > > We could/should probably remove that part, indeed. > > > (2) The author seems to have stopped in the 1980s, lots of tech terms > > have gone obsolete. Look at this: > > We use the term frame to mean the entire terminal screen or > > graphical window used by Emacs. > > The main area of the frame, below the tool bar (if one exists) and > > above the echo area, is called the window. > > Wow, your “frame” is my “window”, then what the heck is your “window”? > > In what way is that a problem in the manual? These are the terms used > throughout Emacs's source code and for reasons of Emacs's design source > code names are very visible to the user, so if the manual doesn't > explain what we mean by "frame" and "window", that will be a lot more > confusing. > > > (3) Author is nostalgic of the past era; some advanced features of the > > past are no longer advanced. Example: > > You are reading about GNU Emacs, the GNU incarnation of the > > advanced, self-documenting, customizable, extensible editor Emacs. > > Huh? “self-documenting”? What editor doesn't have documentation? > > “extensible, customizable”? Nowadays many editors all can be extended > > or customized to various degrees. > > Very few programs have so much documentation available online. > Even many internal functions have online documentation. > And very few programs are nearly as deeply customizable. > Yes, it's a question of degree, but I think we're still ahead in > those areas. As for "advanced", well it's just a marketing term. > > > (4) Some features are too powerful, so explanation would be > > cumbersome: > > You can yank text from the kill ring into any position in a > > buffer, including a position in a different buffer; the kill ring is > > shared by all buffers. > > The “yank & kill” here is like “cut & paste”, then what's “kill ring”? > > Perhaps that means when you cut many times, it won't leave just the > > last cut text, previous cuts are all still in “kill ring”. > > If you look up kill-ring in the index (e.g. by typing "i kill-ring RET" > in Info), you'll find the section "13.3 Yanking Earlier Kills" which > I hope explains it well enough. > > > (5) Because Emacs uses keyboard as its primary input, although these > > days we have mouse, but the core design philosophy still requires all > > functionalities be operable with a keyboard. For example, “selecting a > > text” can be easily done with a mouse, but the manual must use lots > > words to explain how this is done with keyboard. Example: > > If you consider it useless to use the keyboard when you can use the > mouse, that's your problem. For people who find it handy to use the > keyboard, this section is useful. > > Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: some examples of emacs manual problem 2010-09-13 12:27 ` Xah Lee @ 2010-09-13 18:08 ` B. T. Raven 2010-09-13 21:12 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: B. T. Raven @ 2010-09-13 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs Xah Lee wrote: > Hi stefan, > > i think the general situation is not about logical flaw or deficiency > of emacs manual. Rather, it's generation gap. > > (side note: one example i've been thinking is to compare the classic > english literature Gulliver's Travels. It is well acknowledged by all > scholars to be a impecable piece of english work in grammar, style, > story quality, satire execution, but if you read it today, you find > it's exceedingly difficult to understand... requiring a background > understanding all the politics, history, of europe at the time, as > well as the writing style and vocabulary that's few hundred years old) This work is "exceedingly difficult" only to the illiterate and possibly to many whose native language is not English. Tidbit (beginning of tale proper): " My father had a small estate in Nottinghamshire: I was the third of five sons. He sent me to Emanuel College in Cambridge at fourteen years old, where I resided three years, and applied myself close to my studies; but the charge of maintaining me, although I had a very scanty allowance, being too great for a narrow fortune, I was bound apprentice to Mr. James Bates, an eminent surgeon in London, with whom I continued four years. My father now and then sending me small sums of money, I laid them out in learning navigation, and other parts of the mathematics, useful to those who intend to travel, as I always believed it would be, some time or other, my fortune to do. " after a few sentences the author states that he "went down." This is the first substantive difficulty that I see and, without verifying the fact of the matter, I assume that Nottinghamshire is lower in elevation than Cambridge. This is a simple example of a general characteristic of all natural language: perfect understanding is always dependent on the minutia of interpretation and context. Compare this with _Hamlet_, written only 126 years earlier. That play really is "exceedingly difficult" even for many native speakers of English. Btw, 99% of the vocabulary of _Gulliver's Travels_ is still in daily use, 99.99% of it in contemporary writing (even excluding reference works). Ed > > back to emacs manual... to my mind, emacs manual problems can be > solved rather without much difficulty, yet still remain accurate, true > to emacs spirit, and i think agreeable to FSF's philosophy as well as > any marketing spirit thrown in. > > Xah ∑ xahlee.org ☄ > > On Sep 13, 3:30 am, Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: >>> (1) The writer presumes all users are beginners, with no experience in >>> using a editor, even no experience in using a computer. Look at this >>> sentence: >>> Files are named units of text which are stored by the operating >>> system for you to retrieve later by name. >>> O please, do i need to be told what's a file? >> We could/should probably remove that part, indeed. >> >>> (2) The author seems to have stopped in the 1980s, lots of tech terms >>> have gone obsolete. Look at this: >>> We use the term frame to mean the entire terminal screen or >>> graphical window used by Emacs. >>> The main area of the frame, below the tool bar (if one exists) and >>> above the echo area, is called the window. >>> Wow, your “frame” is my “window”, then what the heck is your “window”? >> In what way is that a problem in the manual? These are the terms used >> throughout Emacs's source code and for reasons of Emacs's design source >> code names are very visible to the user, so if the manual doesn't >> explain what we mean by "frame" and "window", that will be a lot more >> confusing. >> >>> (3) Author is nostalgic of the past era; some advanced features of the >>> past are no longer advanced. Example: >>> You are reading about GNU Emacs, the GNU incarnation of the >>> advanced, self-documenting, customizable, extensible editor Emacs. >>> Huh? “self-documenting”? What editor doesn't have documentation? >>> “extensible, customizable”? Nowadays many editors all can be extended >>> or customized to various degrees. >> Very few programs have so much documentation available online. >> Even many internal functions have online documentation. >> And very few programs are nearly as deeply customizable. >> Yes, it's a question of degree, but I think we're still ahead in >> those areas. As for "advanced", well it's just a marketing term. >> >>> (4) Some features are too powerful, so explanation would be >>> cumbersome: >>> You can yank text from the kill ring into any position in a >>> buffer, including a position in a different buffer; the kill ring is >>> shared by all buffers. >>> The “yank & kill” here is like “cut & paste”, then what's “kill ring”? >>> Perhaps that means when you cut many times, it won't leave just the >>> last cut text, previous cuts are all still in “kill ring”. >> If you look up kill-ring in the index (e.g. by typing "i kill-ring RET" >> in Info), you'll find the section "13.3 Yanking Earlier Kills" which >> I hope explains it well enough. >> >>> (5) Because Emacs uses keyboard as its primary input, although these >>> days we have mouse, but the core design philosophy still requires all >>> functionalities be operable with a keyboard. For example, “selecting a >>> text” can be easily done with a mouse, but the manual must use lots >>> words to explain how this is done with keyboard. Example: >> If you consider it useless to use the keyboard when you can use the >> mouse, that's your problem. For people who find it handy to use the >> keyboard, this section is useful. >> >> Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: some examples of emacs manual problem 2010-09-13 12:27 ` Xah Lee 2010-09-13 18:08 ` B. T. Raven @ 2010-09-13 21:12 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 2010-09-13 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: help-gnu-emacs > back to emacs manual... to my mind, emacs manual problems can be > solved rather without much difficulty, yet still remain accurate, true > to emacs spirit, and i think agreeable to FSF's philosophy as well as > any marketing spirit thrown in. I'm glad to hear that, but I personally don't know how you intend to do that, so please send us some sample patches, Stefan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-13 21:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-09-13 3:36 some examples of emacs manual problem Xah Lee 2010-09-13 10:30 ` Stefan Monnier 2010-09-13 12:27 ` Xah Lee 2010-09-13 18:08 ` B. T. Raven 2010-09-13 21:12 ` Stefan Monnier
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.